See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/38099496

Flood vulnerability indices at varying spatial

scales

Article in Water Science & Technology November 2009

DOI: 10.2166/wst.2009.183 Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

58 1,565

3 authors:

Stefania Balica Nicolaas Douben

IHE Delft Institute for Water Education Regional Water Authority Brabantse Delta
15 PUBLICATIONS 373 CITATIONS 4 PUBLICATIONS 63 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Nigel George Wright

De Montfort University
212 PUBLICATIONS 2,414 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Blue Nile River morphodynamics View project

Blue Green Cities Project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Stefania Balica on 16 May 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 2571 Q IWA Publishing 2009 Water Science & TechnologyWST | 60.10 | 2009

Flood vulnerability indices at varying spatial scales

S. F. Balica, N. Douben and N. G. Wright

ABSTRACT

Populations around the world are vulnerable to natural disasters. Such disasters are occurring S. F. Balica
N. G. Wright
with increased frequency as a consequence of socio-economic and land-use developments and UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education,
Delft,
due to increased climate variability. This paper describes a methodology for using indicators to The Netherlands
compute a Flood Vulnerability Index which is aimed at assessing the conditions which E-mail: s.balica@unesco-ihe.org;
n.wright@unesco-ihe.org
influence flood damage at various spatial scales: river basin, sub-catchment and urban area.
N. Douben
The methodology developed distinguishes different characteristics at each identified spatial scale, Waterboard Brabantse Delta,
Breda,
thus allowing a more in-depth analysis and interpretation of local indicators. This also pinpoints The Netherlands
local hotspots of flood vulnerability. The final results are presented by means of a standardised E-mail: k.douben@brabantsedelta.nl

number, ranging from 0 to 1, which symbolises comparatively low or high flood vulnerability
between the various spatial scales. The Flood Vulnerability Index can be used by international
river basin organisations to identify and develop action plans to deal with floods and flooding
or on smaller scales to improve local decision-making processes by selecting measures to
reduce vulnerability at local and regional levels. In this work the methodology has been applied
to various case studies at different spatial scales. This leads to some interesting observations
on how flood vulnerability can be reflected by quantifiable indicators across scales, e.g. the
relationship between the flood vulnerability of a sub-catchment with its river basin or the weak
relation between the flood vulnerability of an urban area with the sub-catchment or river basin
which it belongs to.
Key words | flood exposure, flood resilience, flood risk management, flood susceptibility,
vulnerability indices

INTRODUCTION

A hazardous event is any type of event which disrupts the
normal activities of human society and natural habitats; the
most common form of which is floods. Floods are regarded
as the most dangerous and harmful natural disaster
(Douben 2006).
This paper discusses the development and application
of a Flood Vulnerability Index (FVI), an indicator-based
index which presents flood vulnerability as a single number,
applicable for a range of different spatial scales. It also
demonstrates that the approach is applicable for various
spatial scales, ranging from river basins to urban areas.
doi: 10.2166/wst.2009.183
DEFINING VULNERABILITY
Researchers notion of vulnerability has changed over the
past two decades and consequently there have been several
attempts to define and capture what is meant by the term.
In 1992, the International Panel of Climate Change
IPCC defined vulnerability as the degree of incapability to
cope with the consequences of climate change and sea-level
rise, after years IPCC, through Watson et al. (1996) defined
it as the extent to which climate change may damage or
harm a system; it depends not only on a systems sensitivity
but also on its ability to adapt to new climatic conditions.
 2572 S. F. Balica et al. | Flood vulnerability indices
Blaikie et al. (1994) describe vulnerability as a measure of a
person or a groups exposure to the effects of a natural
hazard, including the degree to which they can recover from
the impact of that event.
Green (2004) expresses vulnerability as the potential for
a receptor to be harmed. These last three (quite similar)
definitions are contemporaneous and express vulnerability
as potential damage or harm. Kelly & Adger (2000) discuss
on the consideration of some assessments of vulnerability as
the end point of any appraisal, others as the focal point, and
yet others as the starting point. van der Veen & Logtmeijer
(2005) broadened the concept of vulnerability to explain
flood vulnerability from an economic point of view.
Gheorghe (2005) explains vulnerability as a function of
susceptibility, resilience, and state of knowledge. In 1999,
Klein and Nicholls express vulnerability for the natural
environment as a function of three main components:
resistance, resilience and susceptibility. Messner & Meyer
(2006) and Merz et al. (2007), narrowed the definition of
vulnerability to elements at risk, exposure (damage poten-
tial) and (loss) susceptibility, instead Mitchell (2002) is
expressing vulnerability as a function of exposure, resilience
and resistance. Adger (2006) spotlighted the vulnerability as
the state of susceptibility to harm from exposure to stresses
associated with environmental and social change and from
the absence of capacity to adapt.
In this paper, vulnerability is considered as the extent of
harm, which can be expected under certain conditions of
exposure, susceptibility and resilience. More specific in the
case of floods: the extent to which a system is susceptible to
floods due to exposure, a perturbation, in conjunction with its
capacity/incapacity to be resilient, to cope, recover or adapt.
By combining all the above-mentioned definitions, the
general vulnerability concept can be expressed as:
Vulnerability Exposure Susceptibility 2 Resilience
All societies are vulnerable to floods, under different
cases and situations, which make them somewhat unique.
Factors of vulnerability
In general, an element which is being harmed by floods is
more vulnerable, the more it is exposed to a hazard and the
Water Science & TechnologyWST | 60.10 | 2009
more it is susceptible (Messner & Meyer 2006) to its forces
and impacts and the less resilient it is to these causes.
Exposure can be understood as the values that are
present in the areas potentially threatened by floods. In case
of the Flood Vulnerability Index, exposure is defined (Balica
2007) as the predisposition of a system to be disrupted by a
flooding event due to its location in the same area of
influence.
Susceptibility relates to system characteristics, including
the social context of flooding damage formation. In this paper,
susceptibility is defined as the elements exposed within
the system, which influence the probabilities (Turner II
et al. 2003) of being harmed at times of hazardous floods.
The term elements exposed includes all elements of the
human system, the built environment and the natural
environment that are exposed to flooding in a given area.
Resilience to flooding damages can be considered only
in places with past events, since the main focus is on the
experiences gained during and after historical floods. In this
paper resilience is defined as the capacity of a system
to suffer any perturbation, like floods, by maintaining
significant levels of efficiency in its social, economic,
environmental and physical components.
WATER RESOURCES SYSTEMS
The water resources systems studied in this paper are
divided into interdependent sub-systems. The Natural River
sub-System, in which the physical and biological processes
take place, the Socio-Economic sub-System, which includes
the societal (human) activities related to the use of the
natural river system and the Administrative and Insti-
tutional sub-System, including legislation and regulation,
where the decision-making, planning and management
processes take place (van Beek 2006).
Each of these three sub-systems is defined by certain
conditions. The Natural River System is delimited by
climate and (geo) physical conditions, the Socio-Economic
System is formed by demographic, social and economic
conditions, and the Administrative and Institutional System
is formed and bounded by the constitutional, legal and
political system.
 2573 S. F. Balica et al. | Flood vulnerability indices
The relationship between floods and water resource
Generally, river systems are affected by floods at three main
scales, with boundaries depending on their spatial scale: the
river basin, the sub-catchment and the urban area.
Floods distress four components: social, economic,
environmental and physical of the water resources system
(ISDR 2004), each of them belongs to one of the subsystems
described before, and their interactions affect the possible
short term and long term damages. The components can be
assessed by different indicators to understand the vulner-
ability of the system to floods
The social and economic components comprise the
socio-economic and the administrative and institutional
sub-system, whereas the environmental and physical comp-
onents are part of the natural river sub-system.
Components of vulnerability
The social component, the flooding affects the day to day
lives of the population that belongs to the system. This
component relates to the presence of human beings and
encompasses issues related to e.g. deficiencies in mobility of
human beings associated with gender, age, or disabilities
(van Beek 2006); Floods can produce destruction of houses,
disruption in communication ways, or even kill people.
Included in this component are the administrative arrange-
ments of the society, consisting of institutions, organizations
and authorities at their respective level.
The economic components are related to income or
issues which are inherent to economics that are predisposed
to be affected (van Beek & Loucks 2005; Gallopin 2006).
Many economic activities which can be affected by flooding
events, among them are adversely agriculture, fisheries,
navigation, power production, industries, etc. The break-
down of these activities can influence the economic
prosperity of a community, region or a country.
In recent years floods have intensified due to e.g., lack
of environmental awareness, creating even more damages
to the ecosystems; if the flood water is polluted or if large
sedimentation processes occur, ecological systems can be
disrupted significantly (Haase 2003). The environmental
component continues to relate to the interrelation between
the sector and the environment and the vulnerability
associated with this interaction (Villagran de Leon 2006).
Water Science & TechnologyWST | 60.10 | 2009
Activities such as deforestation, urbanization and industri-
alization have enhanced environmental degradation,
creating effects like climate variability and sea level rise,
increasing the potential occurrence of floods.
The physical component is comprises geo-morphological
and climatic characteristics of the system, and different
infrastructures, like channels, reservoirs, dams, weirs, levees
which have shaped its physical conditions. The physical
component relates to the predisposition of infrastructure
to be damaged by a flooding event. More than being
affected by floods, this component may reduce its adverse
consequences.
Different spatial scales
The understanding of flood vulnerability of different river
basins starts with categorisation. The different categories
which can be distinguished in a river basin are related to
size and to inherent characteristics.
The advantages of identifying these categories can be
summarised as follows.
Vulnerability is geographically and socially differen-
tiated. Any assessment at national level must take into
account regional patterns of vulnerability within the
country and the distribution of vulnerability within the
national community (Adger et al. 2004);
It is increasingly recognised that vulnerability is a
dynamic characteristic, a function of the constant
evolution of a complex of interactive processes
(Leichenko & OBrien 2002);
Spatial heterogeneity results in a more accurate descrip-
tion of reality;
Including differences in vulnerability components and
vulnerability factors;
Political and administrative division can either facilitate
or impede the availability of data, according to certain
scales. Data from river basins stretching out over more
then one country will be more difficult to estimate; data
from urban areas may vary from country data;
The final results will be more applicable and under-
standable through accumulation of knowledge of how
vulnerability is distributed and how it is developing
throughout the world.
 2574 S. F. Balica et al. | Flood vulnerability indices
Dividing the FVI into spatial scales, i.e. river basin,
sub-catchment and urban areas, and
components, i.e. social, economic, environmental and
physical components, and linking them with the factors
of vulnerability, i.e. exposure (E), susceptibility (S) and
resilience (R) can assist in identifying weak points of a flood
defence system, and hence assist in devising strategies for
improvement of the overall system.
FLOOD VULNERABILITY INDEX METHODOLOGY
The Flood Vulnerability Index (FVI) aims to identify
hotspots related to flood risk in different regions of the
world, so that it can be applied as a tool to assist planners
and policy makers in prioritising their areas of intervention
and also as an instrument to provide useful information for
awareness raising. The main concept consists of identifying
different characteristics of a system, making it applicable to
floods on different spatial levels.
Connor & Hiroki (2005) presented a methodology to
calculate a FVI for river basins, using eleven indicators
divided in four components. The index uses two sub-indices
for its computation; the human index, which corresponds to
the social effects of floods, and the material index, which
covers the economic effects of floods.
This paper describes a revised methodology to compute
a FVI, based on indicators, aimed at assessing the
conditions which induce flood damage at various spatial
scales. The methodology, in principle, is based on sets of
indicators for the four different factors of vulnerability for
fluvial and urban floods.
The methodology recognises different characteristics for
each spatial scale identified, allowing a more in-depth
analysis and interpretation of local indicators. It also allows
selection of actions to diminish local flood vulnerability.
Vulnerability indicators
The first step in an indicator-based vulnerability assessment
is the selection of indicators. The indicators should allow
decision and policy makers to recognise and set goals,
provide guidance for strategies to reduce vulnerability and
to monitor progress.
Water Science & TechnologyWST | 60.10 | 2009
Since the development of the FVI involves the
in different understanding of different relational situations and charac-
teristics of a river system exposed to flood risks, a deductive
approach to identify the best possible indicators has been
used, based on existing principles and the conceptual
framework of vulnerability.
Almost 80 potential indicators have been examined to
upgrade the existing methodology of Connor & Hiroki
(2005), taking into account the previously mentioned
geographical scales: that is, river basin (R), sub-catchment
(S) and urban areas (U). A composite index approach was
used, used also in the construction of Climate Vulnerability
Index (Sullivan & Meigh 2005).
General FVI equation for all scales
The proposed general FVI Equation (1) links the values of all
indicators to flood vulnerability components and factors
(exposure, susceptibility and resilience), without balancing or
interpolating from a series of data. Using this equation allows
comparisons between different geographical scales, since the
outcome of the computation is dimensionless. Dimensionless
results are necessary in order to compare FVIs for similar
components and scales for different case studies.
Dimensionless FVI equations are developed by using
fractions with indicators as part of a numerator or denomi-
nator, depending on their effect on the flood vulnerability.
Indicators representing exposure and susceptibility increase
the flood vulnerability and are therefore placed in the
nominator. The resilience indicators decrease flood
vulnerability and are conversely part of the denominator:
ES
FVI 1
R
Besides the FVI values for each component, standar-
dised results are developed for further comparison between
components (Sullivan et al. 2003), also serving the purpose
of easier interpretation. Standardised FVI values range
between 1 and 0; 1 being the most vulnerable to floods. The
standardised formula is presented as a FVI of a system
divided by the maximum FVI within one system (2):
FVIscale
FVIS 2
FVImax
 2575 S. F. Balica et al. | Flood vulnerability indices Water Science & TechnologyWST | 60.10 | 2009

Since the study of river basins covers large Flood Vulnerability Index for economic component on
heterogeneous areas, interpreting the FVI on such a scale sub-catchment scale:
can be misleading. Therefore the study of smaller spatial 2 3
LU ; U M ; Ineq ; U A
scales can lead to a more accurate evaluation of the flood FVIEc FVIEc 4 5 4
vulnerability of a region. Interpreting the values of all sub- LEI ; F I ; AmInv; VSyear
C
; ECR

catchments in one river basin can provide a more detailed

image of the situation in the basin.
The relation of vulnerability components, indicators %
%
2
%

Dimension of FVIEc
2
2
euro=euro
m3 =m3
2

and factors is illustrated in Table 1 for various spatial scales.
The availability of data, the importance of certain indicators 2 dimensionless;
and the condition that all FVIs computed must be
dimensionless for the purposes of comparison, led to the Flood Vulnerability Index for environmental
formulation of the equations for each scale and for each component on sub-catchment scale:
vulnerability component. " #
Ra inf all ; DA ; U G
FVIEn FVIEn 5
LU ; EV ; N R ; U npop
Flood vulnerability index at a sub-catchment scale

The FVI methodology for the sub-catchment scale was

initially developed by using a total of 71 indicators. Since %
%
m=year

Dimension of FVIEn 2 dimensionless;
the development of the FVI involves the understanding of %
m=year
%
%

different relational situations and characteristics of a system
with flood events, a deductive approach to identify the best Flood Vulnerability Index for physical component on
possible indicators has been used. Understanding the causes sub-catchment scale:
of floods and their main effects on the different components 2 3
of a system led to the recognition of the optimal indicators. T
FVIPh FVIPh 4 EV SC
5 6
However, only 28 indicators have been selected for the Ra inf all ; V year ; D_L
sub-catchment FVI equations.

Equations of the sub-catchment scale 2

Dimension of FVIPh mm=year
h 3 ih i 2 dimensionless;
m Km
mm=year
m3 Km
Equations (3) to (6) reflect the vulnerability of a selected
geographical area, limited by watershed divisions rather
than administrative boundaries. The latter often adds to the
difficulty of collecting data. Summary of results of the sub-catchment scale
Flood Vulnerability Index for social component on
sub-catchment scale: For the sub-catchment scale, five case studies were selected
for comparison purposes and to relate the analysis results


PFA ; RPop ; %disable ; C m with river basins on a larger scale. The five case studies
FVIS FVIS 3
PE ; A=P; C PR ; W S ; ER ; HDI consist of the Tisza, Bega and Timis sub-catchments,
which are situated in the Danube River Basin, the Neckar
sub-catchment in the Rhine River Basin and the Mun
persons
%
2
sub-catchment in the Mekong River Basin.
Dimension of FVIS
persons
2
%
2
%
2
The results of the FVIs for all components and the total
2 dimensionless; FVI, are summarised in Figure 1. It clearly shows that the
Table 1 | Relationship between components, indicators and factors

2576
Overall Indicators

S. F. Balica et al. | Flood vulnerability indices

Relationship between components and factors

Geographic Geographic Geographic

Flood vulnerability Exposure Abb scale Susceptibility Abb scale Resilience Abb scale

Social Component Population density Pd R,S,U Past experience PE R,S,U Warning system WS R,S,U
Population in Pfa R,S,U Education (literacy rate) Ed R,S,U Evacuation routes ER R,S,U
flood area
Closeness to Cia R,S,U Preparedness/awareness A/P R,S,U Institutional IC R,S,U
inundation area capacity
Population close Pccl R,S,U Child mortality Cm R,S,U Emergency service ES R,S,U
to coastal
Population under Pp R,S,U Communication CPR R,S,U Shelters S R,S,U
poverty penetration rate
% of urbanized % UA R,S Population with access PwaS R,S,U
area to sanitation
Rural population Rpop R,S Rural population PwoWS R,S
w/o access to WS
Cadastre survey CS S,U Quality of water supply QWS S,U
Cultural heritage CH S,U Quality of energy supply QES S,U
% of disable % disable U Population growth PG S,U
Human health HH S,U
Human development HDI S,U
index
Urban planning UP U
Economic Land use LU R,S,U Unemployment UM R,S,U Investment in Amln R,S,U
component c. measure
Proximity to river PR R,S,U Income I R,S,U Infrastructure IM R,S,U

Water Science & TechnologyWST | 60.10 | 2009

management
Closeness to Cia R,S,U Inequality Ineq R,S,U Dams & storage D SC R,S,U
inundation area capacity
% of urbanized % UA R,S Yearly volume Vyear R,S,U Flood insurance FI R,S,U
area
Cadastre survey CS S,U Life expectancy index LEI R,S,U Economic ECR R,S,U
recovery
Urban growth UG S,U Past experience PE S,U
Child mortality CM S,U Dikes/levees DL S,U
Regional GDP/capita GDP S
Urban planning UP U
 2577
S. F. Balica et al. | Flood vulnerability indices
Table 1 | (continued)

Overall Indicators

Relationship between components and factors

Geographic Geographic Geographic

Flood vulnerability Exposure Abb scale Susceptibility Abb scale Resilience Abb scale

Environmental Ground WL GWL R,S,U Natural reservations NR R,S,U Recovery time RTF R,S,U
component to floods
Land Use LU R,S,U Years of sustaining YSHL R,S,U Environmental EC R,S,U
health life concern
Over used area OUA R,S,U Quality of infrastructure QI R,S,U
Degrated area DA R,S,U Human health HH S,U
Unpopulated Unpop R,S Urban growth UG S,U
land area
Types of TV R,S Child mortality CM S,U
vegetation
% of urbanized % UA R,S Rainfall Rainfall
area
Forest change rate FCR R Evaporation Ev
Physical component Topography(slope) T R,S,U Buildings codes Bc U Dams & storage D SC R,S,U
capacity
Heavy rainfall HR R,S,U Frequency of occurance FO R,S,U Roads R R,S,U
Flood duration FD R,S,U Dikes/levees DL S,U
Return periods RP R,S,U
Proximity to river PR R,S,U

Water Science & TechnologyWST | 60.10 | 2009

Soil moisture SM R,S,U
Evaporation rate Ev R,S,U
River discharge RD R,S,U
Flow velocity FV S,U
Storm surge SS S,U
Rainfall Rainfall S,U
Flood water depth FWD S,U
Sedimentation SL S,U
load
Yearly volume Vyear S,U
 2578 S. F. Balica et al. | Flood vulnerability indices Water Science & TechnologyWST | 60.10 | 2009

Figure 1 | Comparison between sub-catchments standardised values.

Figure 2 | Comparison between FVIs on river basinsub-catchmentcity scales
(DanubeTisza/BegaTimisoara; standardised values).

Mun is the sub-catchment most vulnerable to floods, except

for the environmental component, followed by the
Neckar sub-catchment. Especially socially and economi-
cally, the Mun sub-catchment experiences a high vulner-
ability to floods. Developing plans to reduce these two
components may reduce the total FVI of the Mun River.
The other three sub-catchments, the Tisza, Timis and Bega,
have similar values.
Downscale analysis of results
The improved FVI has been applied to eleven case studies,
which were selected in order to allow for a downscaling
analysis of the results, in order to compare and interpret
the results.
The downscale analysis was carried out for all three
for the environmental component. In general, the Tisza
and Bega Rivers and Timisoara are relatively equal in the
overall results.
Considering each component, the Danube River Basin
is not the most economically vulnerable (FVIec) to floods.
This is, however, the case for Timisoara, due to its low
annual amount of investment for flood mitigation, no flood
insurance and the large number of industries which can be
affected in the case of floods. For the remaining com-
ponents, Timisoara is the least vulnerable to floods, mainly
due to a river diversion scheme upstream, which protects
the city from floods.
The Bega river is overall the least vulnerable spatial
scale. This is unsurprising, considering that there is a river
diversion scheme, which protects all downstream areas

spatial scales studied: river basin, sub-catchment and urban from flooding, therefore reducing the vulnerability of all

areas. In this section the results are shown for all three cities components.
studied: Timisoara (Romania), Mannheim (Germany) and
Phnom Penh (Cambodia).
The analysis was also carried out to examine the
differences of flood vulnerability between geographical
scales at all components. The FVI is different from
component to component and from scale to scale, as
shown in Figures 1 to 3.

From the Danube River Basin to Timisoara

Figure 2 illustrates the relation of the Danube River Basin

with the smaller spatial scales in the system. It can be seen
Figure 3 | Comparison between FVIs on river basinsub-catchment - city scales
that the Danube River Basin is most vulnerable, except (RhineNeckarMannheim; standardised values).
 2579 S. F. Balica et al. | Flood vulnerability indices
From the Rhine River Basin to Mannheim
The chart shown in Figure 3 for the Rhine River Basin, the
Neckar sub-catchment and Mannheim City follows the
same line of results for the social, economic and environ-
mental components as the Danube River Basin and its
smaller scales, with the exception that the Neckar sub-
catchment is the least physically vulnerable to floods.
The city of Mannheim is most vulnerable, both
economically and physically (FVIph). With respect to the
economic component this result is rather obvious, con-
sidering the large number of industries in the area, which in
case of flooding would leave a permanent damage to the
economy of the region.
From the Mekong River Basin to Phnom Penh
For the case of the Mekong River Basin, the city of Phnom
Penh is not situated in the Mun sub-catchment, which
makes the analysis more direct, with only two spatial scales.
The results are highly sensitive to the decision whether
to include the storage volume, since the first case shows the
Mekong River Basin with an overall flood vulnerability
higher than the urban area, and the second case creates a
much larger difference in the overall results.
Downscaling is a powerful tool to assist decision
makers in improving their investment strategies for the
reduction of flooding damages. Analysing which spatial
scale is more vulnerable to floods and in which areas this
vulnerability can be reduced more easily, may assist
decision makers to prioritise certain projects for flood
protection in local and regional areas.
Smaller spatial scales generally contain more detailed
and specific indicators. There are more indicators available
to evaluate the FVI for sub-catchments and urban areas
than for River Basins. The equations developed for each
component result in more detailed information on smaller
scales, whilst some of these component values have no
influence on FVIs for larger scales.
On the basis of these downscaling results, it can be
concluded that urban areas are entities of their own in terms
of the FVI, the results of their study are only representative
for that specific area of land. FVI values of all cities in a sub-
catchment or a river basin cannot be linked to the FVI
Water Science & TechnologyWST | 60.10 | 2009
values obtained on larger scales. However, reducing the
vulnerability to floods of a city may also reduce the
vulnerability of a larger area.
DISCUSSION
The methodology presented here is based on sets of
indicators for different factors and different geographical
scales, focusing on fluvial and urban floods.
Various indicators have been taken into account to
quantify flood vulnerability. Some of the indicators originally
proposed were not considered in the final equations, due to
the difficulty of quantifying them, finding data, possible
redundancy with other indicators or with the purpose of
creating a dimensionless result for each equation.
Since the methodology is based on indicators, its main
weakness is the accuracy of data. For the results to be valid,
all data must be derived from reliable sources, specified for a
precise spatial area at a defined time.
Improving the weaknesses identified in this section
may lead to a variation of some of the results found.
This variation is very difficult to assess without certain
mathematical approaches, like a sensitivity analysis, but
considering the approach of the methodology and the
homogeneity of the concepts, the variations of the results
should stay in a relative close range.
In the study a comparative analysis of the results from
river basins and sub-catchments (downscaling) have been
carried out to assess the robustness of the FVI methodology.
These sub-catchments were also selected because it allows
comparisons between river basins and sub-catchments,
besides comparing some sub-catchments in the same
river basin.
Downscaling is a powerful tool in order to assist
decision makers in improving their investments strategies
for the reduction of flood damages. Recognising which
spatial scale is more vulnerable to floods and in which
places this vulnerability can be reduced more easily, may
show decision makers to prioritize certain projects in flood
protection in local and regional areas.
As the methodology is still under development, these
weaknesses and other issues, which might be identified in
due time, can be improved leading to further adaptations of
 2580 S. F. Balica et al. | Flood vulnerability indices
concepts or to the introduction of new concepts, resulting
in a better methodology.
CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions concerning the development of a FVI
methodology can be summarised as follows:
the FVI is applicable on three different spatial scales:
river basin, sub-catchment and urban areas;
the use of the FVI methodology improves the decision-
making process by identifying the vulnerability of flood
prone areas;
comparing the various spatial scales allows for better
interpretation of flood vulnerability assessment results;
standardisation of results allows for better comparison
between river systems on similar spatial scales;
the FVI is a powerful tool for policy and decision makers
to prioritise investments and makes the decision-making
process more transparent. Identifying areas with high
flood vulnerability may guide the decision-making
process towards better means of dealing with floods.
REFERENCES
Adger, W. N. 2006 Vulnerability. Glob. Environ. Change 16,
268 281.
Adger, W. N., Brooks, N., Bentham, G., Agnew, M. & Eriksen, S.
2004 New Indicators of Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity,
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.
Balica, S. F. 2007 Development and Application of Flood
Vulnerability Indices for Various Spatial Scales. Water Science
and Engineering. Delft, UNESCO-IHE. MSc.
Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I. & Wisner, B. 1994 At RiskNatural
Hazards, Peoples Vulnerability and Disasters, London.
Connor, R. F. & Hiroki, K. 2005 Development of a method for
assessing flood vulnerability. Water Sci. Technol. 51(5), 61 67.
Douben, N. 2006 Characteristics of river floods and flooding: a
global overview, 1985 2003, Irrigation and Drainage 55,
S9 S21, published online in Wiley InterScienc.
Gallopin, G. C. 2006 Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and
adaptive capacity. Glob. Environ. Change 16(3), 293 303.
Gheorghe, A. (ed.) 2005 Integrated Risk and Vulnerability
Management Assisted by Decision Support Systems. Relevance
and Impact on Governance. Springer, Dordrecht.
Green, C. 2004 The Evaluation of Vulnerability to Flooding,
Disaster Prevention and Management, (13). Emerald Group
Publishing Limited, pp. 323 329.
View publication stats
Water Science & TechnologyWST | 60.10 | 2009
Haase, D. 2003 Holocene floodplains and their distribution in
urban areas functionality indicators for their retention
potentials. Landsc. Urban Plan. 66, 518.
ISDR 2004 Living with floods, UN guidelines offer decision-makers
hope to reduce flood losses, World Water Day (22 March) the
publication Guidelines for reducing flood losses was launched
in Geneva, New York, Bangkok and Harare.
Kelly, P. M. & Adger, W. N 2000 Theory and practice in assessing
vulnerability to climate change and facilitating adaptation.
Clim. change 47, 325 352.
Leichenko, R. M. & OBrien, K. L. 2002 The dynamics of rural
vulnerability to global change: the case of Southern Africa.
Mitigation Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 7(1), 1 18.
Merz, B., Thieken, A. H. & Gocht, M. 2007 Flood risk mapping at
the local scale: concepts and challenges. In: Begum, S., et al.
(eds) Flood Risk Management in Europe. pp. 231 251.
Messner, F. & Meyer, V. 2006 Flood damages, vulnerability and
risk perceptionchallenges for flood damage research.
In: Schanze, J., et al. (eds) Flood Risk Management: Hazards,
Vulnerability and Mitigation Measures. Springer. pp. 149167.
Mitchell, J. 2002 Urban disasters as indicators of global
environmental change: assessing functional varieties of
vulnerability, Symposium on Disaster Reduction and Global
Environmental Change, Federal Foreign Office, Berlin,
Germany, June 20 21.
Sullivan, C. & Meigh, J. 2005 Targeting attention on local
vulnerabilities using an integrated index approach: the
example of the climate vulnerability index. Water Sci. Technol.
51(5), 69 78.
Sullivan, C. A., Meigh, J. R., Giacomello, A. M., Fediw, T.,
Lawrence, P., Samad, M., Mlote, S., Hutton, C., Allan, J. A.,
Schulze, R. E., Dlamini, D. J. M., Cosgrove, W., Delli Priscoli,
J., Gleick, P., Smout, I., Cobbing, J., Calow, R., Hunt, C.,
Hussain, A., Acreman, M. C. & King, J. 2003 The water
poverty index: development and application at the community
scale. Nat. Resour. Forum 27, 189 199.
Turner II, B. L., Kasperson, R. E., Matson, P. A., McCarthy, J. J.,
Corell, R. W., Christensen, L., Eckley, N., Kasperson, J. X.,
Luers, A., Martello, M. L., Polsky, C., Pulsipher, A. & Schiller, A.
2003 A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability
science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of
the United States of America 100, 8074 8079.
van Beek, E. 2006 Water Resources Development, UNESCO-IHE,
Lecture Notes.
van Beek, E. & Loucks, D. P. 2005 Water Resources Systems
Planning and Managementan introduction to methods,
models and applications, UNESCOParis.
van der Veen, A. & Logtmeijer, C. 2005 Economic hotspots: visualizing
vulnerability to flooding. Nat. Hazards 36(12), 6580.
Villagran de Leon, J. C. 2006 VulnerabilityA conceptual and Metho-
dological review, UNU EHS, no 4/2006, Bonn, Germany.
Watson, R. T., Zinyowera, M. C. & Moss, R. H. (eds) 1996 Climate
Change 1995, in Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of
Climate Change: Scientific-Technical Analyses. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.